Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 7. (Read 86349 times)

You left me wrong feedback a week ago


I did not create that topic because he left that feedback, it was because he left this:
"Unfortunately I do not have any concrete evidence but I have a strong suspicion that this user is an alt of elmanchez (u=2553198) and ps34 (u=2751022). If dealing with this user, I suggest you trust him no more than you would the other two. If in doubt, use escrow. DireWolfM14"

DireWolfM14 accused me of being an ALT of a scammer without any evidence at all, without a REF link or anything, that's why I created the topic.
And I think many more at this forum would do exactly the same if this would have happen to them, so if you gonna leave me feedback, at least say the truth in it. I would appreciate it, I don't like lies or liars.
Just because people leave neutral feedback doesn't give them the right to leave pure lies as feedback.


Also I want to ask you one thing
Why did you leave this feedback? I don't want to try to start a argue or anything, I just wonder why you feel that it's your business to leave feedback to someone I did lend out money to?
I can understand why DireWolfM14 did it, even that it's not his business either, because Sakanwa should get a DT tag.
But you not even on the DT list?






It seems that it's very important for you to be on the DT list, if you review 3000+ feedback, it must have taken hours of hours.
And that you have done this is a sign that you av listen to the reputable members that told you to change approach, and you should get respect for that.
Good luck to get back into it DT, and if you do, I hope you don't abuse it once more.

Best wishes / CC.

Are you though? I haven't been in meta for weeks if not months but it feels like I never left because I still find your off-topic whiny-ass stalker nonsense in one of the first threads I open. So thanks for making me feel right back at home but maybe try growing up big man.

Remember posting this:


Yep - did that weeks months ago.  I now have ~390 trust feedback down from the previous ~3,050 - so which one is wrong?


So if my Trust feedbacks are correct ^(*), ^{and I predominantly DT trust DT1 users,} why aren't you doing as you tell others to do?


I am - are you?

Lol Thanks for point out this impossible edge-case scenario. Obviously, I did not have something like that in mind. But I believe that some tweaks can be added in order to avoid such situation, if a change would be made.

nutildah also has a point when he says that

Probably I did not come up with the best idea but in my mind there is still a contradiction regarding the current state of the system -- meaning the fact that you still have some DT1 powers although you are excluded from DT1...

I'm afraid I can't figure this out without a glass of wine ^{[After reading the first 3 lines, I was on the verge of tagging Loyce as a spammer]}. 

The real question for the people who don't get the explanation here, can you link every row from top to bottom by crossing "excluded" without crossing the word exclusion?  No joke, I'm actually playing word Plinko in paint with that wall of text!

Thanks for coming up with that example... I was prepared to elaborate if somebody questioned it but I'm glad I didn't have to 

I agree with you, abuse will look easier now, if a good-quality poster wants to abuse the system, then it is easily to create 8 accounts, add 10 merits to them, vote for himself, and all he needs now is one vote out of +250 merits.
Preventing such a user from voting or increasing the difficulty of choosing, such as 100 merits instead of 10, will reduce the abuse of the system.


I have divided it into several blocks so I can't read it.

Let's say 2 DT1-users have no inclusions from other DT1-members, but they exclude each other. In the current system, they both have DT1 Strength (-1). Following GazetaBitcoin's suggestion, their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded.Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. .......

It nevertheless has sense. When a reshuffle the calculation of votes pro and contra can change so there can be a chance that in next time the same person will get more positive votes than negative. And you can never know before reshuffle. If you'll make a decision about someone's inclusion in the list of eligible ones before reshuffle then there could be an abuse of a system when some group will decide to exclude some other group when there will be more representatives of a first one than of a second one. And if it will affect the reshuffle the second group will never return to DT1. So right, we have a situation when there are some users with negative power in DT1, but IMO there's less chance of abuse.

I kind of like it the way that it is because it lessens the consolidation of power that DT1 has.

If the vote of DT1 with exclusions > inclusions didn't count, it may have the net effect of making those with inclusions > exclusions all the more powerful. This is not always the case of course, as some "voted out" DT1 don't have any exclusions of DT1 members.

So, meeting the criteria for DT1 (which includes the ability to "vote" via inclusions/exclusions) is a separate status from having DT1 powers.

Another thing to consider is that if a DT1 gains an exclusion that renders them net excluded, it could have far reaching effects, triggering other exclusions or inclusions, possibly even resulting in some kind of endless cycle that might break the trust system

I know that Trust system works this way but I don't think it is 100% fair, to say so... The system is made, in fact by 3 components:

1. Be eligible to be elected
2. The monthly random shuffle
3. The inclusions and exclusions, which have the power to overrule the monthly reshuffle.

Practically, these 3 components are complementary to each other and work as a whole.

So in this case, after a monthly reshuffle we have user A included in DT1, as he was eligible to be part of DT1. At same time though, he has more exclusions than inclusions (from other DT1 users), therefore he is automatically out of DT, although the reshuffle placed him there. Practically, the vote of majority took him out. In this case, I don't consider it's fair to allow this user to still have the power of voting for other DT members, as he was, actually, removed from DT by the votes of those excluding him (which was greater than the ones including him).

What I'm trying to say is that, although (1) a user is eligible to be part of DT1 and (2) the system nominated him as DT1 (by the monthly reshuffle), then if he is cast out by the vote of majority (more exclusions than inclusions) then his voting powers should be also eliminated. Why should he have the power to vote if he is not part of DT?

That's the thing with gang mentality - being told something then blindly accepting it as gospel without doing your own research to determine whether something is factual or just gossip.

Thanks, I hadn't noticed this (and missed your post). This means my "forum cookie" expired (I don't know why, but that happens sometimes), which means my scraper couldn't login, which means Trust ratings aren't shown. I've fixed it.

See Default trust breakdown: he has DT1 Strength (-12), which means his feedback isn't shown by default. But he can still vote for other DT1-members (up or down).

I don't quite understand the addition of Timelord2067 to DT1. There are about 7 DT1s that trust him and about 17 that distrust him. Didn't he drop out of DT2 because of that?

Theymos only DT2. does this happen often? i mean theymos are not in DT1

Is there any difference between DT1 and DT2? As far as I know, both DT1 and DT2 will have an effect visible to all members if tagged

You find the pattern (updated until last week):

One of those times when Theymos is not on DT1.
Is there any ritual to be followed?

Theymos reshuffled DT1.

Removed:
     1. Administrator theymos (Trust: +27 / =0 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     2. Legendary gbianchi (Trust: +3 / =1 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     3. Legendary stompix (Trust: neutral) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     4. Legendary minerjones (Trust: +127 / =0 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     5. Legendary irfan_pak10 (Trust: +12 / =1 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     6. Legendary yahoo62278 (Trust: +39 / =2 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     7. Legendary zazarb (Trust: +21 / =0 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     8. Legendary sandy-is-fine (Trust: +6 / =0 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     9. Legendary holydarkness (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    10. Legendary Coin_trader (Trust: +5 / =3 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    11. Legendary HCP (Trust: +5 / =0 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    12. Sr. Member comit (Trust: +34 / =0 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    13. Legendary krogothmanhattan (Trust: +85 / =1 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    14. Legendary JollyGood (Trust: +15 / =3 / -2) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    15. Legendary KTChampions (Trust: +6 / =0 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    16. Copper Member bavicrypto (Trust: +29 / =0 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    17. Legendary sheenshane (Trust: +5 / =1 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    18. Copper Member logfiles (Trust: +5 / =0 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    19. Legendary joniboini (Trust: neutral) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    20. Legendary masulum (Trust: neutral) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    21. Legendary coinlocket$ (Trust: +9 / =0 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    22. Legendary witcher_sense (Trust: +15 / =0 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    23. Copper Member shahzadafzal (Trust: neutral) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    24. Legendary morvillz7z (Trust: +4 / =0 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    25. Legendary cryptofrka (Trust: +10 / =0 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    26. Legendary madnessteat (Trust: +5 / =1 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    27. Legendary YOSHIE (Trust: +10 / =1 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    28. Hero Member decodx (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)

Added:
     1. Donator qwk (Trust: +17 / =1 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     2. Legendary Timelord2067 (Trust: +16 / =12 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     3. Legendary jeremypwr (Trust: +29 / =2 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     4. Legendary Buchi-88 (Trust: +7 / =0 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     5. Legendary o_solo_miner (Trust: +8 / =0 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     6. Legendary Real-Duke (Trust: +3 / =0 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     7. Legendary TryNinja (Trust: +10 / =1 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     8. Legendary condoras (Trust: +13 / =0 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     9. Legendary Yatsan (Trust: +4 / =2 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    10. Legendary buwaytress (Trust: +17 / =0 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    11. Copper Member crwth (Trust: +3 / =3 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    12. Legendary webtricks (Trust: +5 / =1 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    13. Legendary wolwoo (Trust: +0 / =2 / -2) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    14. Legendary roycilik (Trust: +10 / =2 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    15. Legendary Best_Change (Trust: +26 / =8 / -1) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    16. Legendary JeromeTash (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    17. Hero Member 3meek (Trust: neutral) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    18. Copper Member Bitcoin_Arena (Trust: +1 / =1 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    19. Legendary TheBeardedBaby (Trust: +5 / =0 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    20. Legendary fillippone (Trust: +12 / =1 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    21. Legendary The Cryptovator (Trust: +22 / =1 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    22. Copper Member Harkorede (Trust: +5 / =2 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    23. Hero Member The0ldl_lser (Trust: neutral) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    24. Legendary efialtis (Trust: +25 / =0 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    25. Legendary Stalker22 (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    26. Legendary BlackHatCoiner (Trust: neutral) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    27. Legendary Charles-Tim (Trust: +3 / =1 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    28. Hero Member MrCryptHodl (Trust: +26 / =0 / -0) (Trust list) (BPIP)